Buying C182 - what to look for

[DesertNomad]

I have my PPL and am starting my instrument training. I have 110 total hours, mostly in a 172, but 10 of it in a 182. I also have 35 hours in a 182 in Africa that I can't include in my total hours.

I am based at KRNO (so high desert). Mostly it is for my wife and I, but we'd sometimes bring another couple (he's a pilot too). Nevada has lots of open space so range is a consideration and we would like to be comfortable flying onto a grass runway to visit friends in Oregon and Washington.

My budget could be as high as $160K (paying cash) which I think would get me a nice 1998 182S, perhaps even something from 1999 or 2000. I have been advised to avoid 1997 as that was the first year re-starting the production line.

It would also cover a 1982 or 83 182R. I can't afford a G1000 system so I'd be hoping to get something with a G530.

Obviously I am looking for a low time (esp low engine time) airplane and one that has not been in a school (shouldn't be a problem as most schools don't use 182s).

I know there was a crankshaft AD but don't know much about the work it entailed. I have also heard that getting a fuel-injected Lycoming model will get me a slightly lower fuel burn.

AOPA told be about $1500 to insure it and locally a hangar is $300/mo or so. Fuel is $5.35 last time I checked at KCXP which is much cheaper than KRNO and worth a landing.

Thoughts and comments?

 

[timwinters]

Buy, beg, borrow or steal a copy of CPA's skylane buyer's guide (or whatever it's actually called).

It's geared more towards the pre-re-startup models but surely a lot of it is appropriate to the later models also:

http://www.cessna.org/buyers-guide-182-excerpts

 

[Jeff Oslick]

First, sign up with the Cessna Pilots Association and the Cessna Pilots Society to get lots of specifics.

Given your budget and that you're a high-country flier, I would strongly consider getting a "cherry" legacy (late 70's, early 80's) 182 that has an engine upgrade to at least a Pponk or Texas Skyways conversion. We have Pponk (275 hp) mod, which is basically O-520 cylinders on a 470 bottom end. We've flown it to Big Bear and Mammoth many times, and the difference in climb and high-DA performance is huge over stock. I don't know that there any engine upgrade options available for the restart 182s. Another option to consider would be a T182.

You can probably find what you want for $120K or less. Focus on a good airframe, but total airframe time isn't very important if it is clean and dry.

Engine swaps are nothing to fear in your budget range if you're going to be keeping this for several years and/or a few hundred hours. You could get a run-out and just plan to immediately drop in another engine. Similarly, avionics upgrades are not a huge deal if you're working with a reputable shop. In my (awful) experience, paint work is the worst to deal with from a time and money perspective, because few paint shops seem to be able to keep anything like a reasonable schedule, and you may end up with a bunch of other costs for fairing replacements, etc. A $10K paint job can easily turn into a $15K (or more) paint job.

Insurance will largely be a fraction of stated hull value. With three partners all over 300 hrs in type and all with IR, we're paying slightly less than 1% of stated hull value/year, with $1M/$250K per seat coverage. With low time in type (IR?), your insurance will likely be about 25% higher.

The pre-buy inspection needs to be done by someone with a lot of 182 work time. There are several areas to inspect that can be quite expensive to fix. Don't be afraid of getting a 182 with properly repaired firewall damage; you'll unnecessarily limit your airframe options if you omit those with this common repair (from folks landing on the nose gear).

 

[Z06_Mir]

I'm partial to the Lycoming versions... 1997+ and the R182 (78-85?)

My R182 was well within your budget and it was a very low time airframe (1300 hours) on the original engine/prop which we haven't replaced and probably won't. Had a 430 w/ an MX20 and an HSI, but I'm sure one with a 530 wouldn't be hard to find. There was a TR182 on the red board for sale for a really good deal down here in Scottsdale too.

 

[Morne]

I have a 1962 E model and love it. If I had it to do over again, though, I'd probably get a 210.

I got mine painted right after I bought it for around 10k. With your budget I'd look for a bird with the right panel but an old paint job and a runout engine. Get the pPonk 520 cylinders upgrade and paint her, you'll have a better bird than what comes off the line today!

 

[DesertNomad]

The 182 I have been flying on a rental basis is a 182E with a Garmin 430. I'll have to do some research on the 520 option.

 

[BobThePilot]

182's are nice, but since you've only flown Cessna 172's and 182's, perhaps you should try some other planes so you have a better idea of the type of plane you really want before you commit to buying a 182. 172's are kind of like corolla's and 182's are like the next step up to a camry: Sort of the aviation equivalent of generic econoboxes. Nice, sure, get you from point A to B? Check. But die of boredom in the process. They're ok to rent occasionally. Just my 2 pesos.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

A 182 is much more like an F-150 in utility than an econobox. Ours has 800# payload available *with* 75 gallons of useable fuel on board.

I also wouldn't insult that handling of the Camry to compare it to a 182 .

 

[NoHeat]

Flying Magazine had an article about two years ago on exactly this question: what to look for when buying a used 182.

One thing they mentioned, as part of your mechanic's pre-buy inspection, was a careful look at the firewall for signs of damage from a nose-first landing.

If you are concerned about 100LL availability in the future, the 182P is the last model that is eligible for the Mogas STC.

 

[DesertNomad]

How concerned should I be about 100LL availability? I know Cessna is now moving to a 182 running on Jet-A (Diesel). Not sure if that one has been certified yet, but in any case it is out of my budget. We have ethanol added to our mogas so not sure that is really an option.

I've also flown a Grumman Yankee and a Decathlon. My CFI is trying to get me some time in an Arrow, but I've not flown one yet.

 

[Morne]

How concerned should I be about 100LL availability? I know Cessna is now moving to a 182 running on Jet-A (Diesel). Not sure if that one has been certified yet, but in any case it is out of my budget. We have ethanol added to our mogas so not sure that is really an option.

I've also flown a Grumman Yankee and a Decathlon. My CFI is trying to get me some time in an Arrow, but I've not flown one yet.

Find ethanol free mogas if you get one eligible for the STC.

 

[N747JB]

That may be more of an issue than finding 100LL for most of us in the future.
I have a 77 182Q, I would probably look for a 78+ 182Q if I were looking right now. The 77 model was basically a P model with the slower turning, longer TBO engine, but it still has the fuel bladders vs wet wings and 12v electrical vs 24v for the 78 and newer airplanes. I like mine fine and it was a good airplane at a good price when I bought it.
Don't be afraid of paying a little more for one ready to go, it costs a lot more than you think to upgrade and update one. Avionics are a budget killer, if you are interested in the latest stuff. Adding a GTN650 is gonna cost you $12-13K+ PLUS the "while you've got it apart" items, you know like updating the audio panel, removing the ADF, maybe swapping the #2 radio for something built in the last 20 years, oh and the indicators need to be changed too. And that danged old Cessna autopilot won't work, so you might as well puut in an S-Tec and be done with it. Suddenly you have a $25K avionics bill and the paint is still 1980ish and the seats need to be updated as well, there's another $15-20K out the window, and the glass, you can't possibly see out of that old glass and that's another couple G's. I left out the engine and prop, but you see how the story is going.

Find ethanol free mogas if you get one eligible for the STC.

 

[weilke]

- find a post-restart that is affected by the AD but didn't have it done.
- beat them up on price
- ferry the plane
- do an Alamo conversion
- own a plane with decent avionics and a new engine

 

[N747JB]

My only issue with the post-restart airplanes is that in todays world they have old avionics, better than the usually 80's variety stuff, but still old. I'd rather have my 77 model with a 530W than a 98 model with a KLN94
A buddy of mine bought a newer one and the first thing he did was add a 430W which he has now traded for a 650.

- find a post-restart that is affected by the AD but didn't have it done.
- beat them up on price
- ferry the plane
- do an Alamo conversion
- own a plane with decent avionics and a new engine

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Although the Pponk isn't certified to run on mogas, it is a low-compression engine and would run fine on non-ethanol mogas. If push came to shove and 100LL went away, there would be a big push for a mogas STC for the Pponk. I suspect if you check the tanks of a lot of Pponk'd 182s in Alaska, you'd fine a fair amount of mogas "contamination..."

Jeff

 

[weilke]

My only issue with the post-restart airplanes is that in todays world they have old avionics, better than the usually 80's variety stuff, but still old. I'd rather have my 77 model with a 530W than a 98 model with a KLN94
A buddy of mine bought a newer one and the first thing he did was add a 430W which he has now traded for a 650.

Reasonable thing to do. After you do that, your AP is going to be a KAP140 and your other radio a KX155A. In a 70s model, unless you find one that has been completely re-done, you are still going to suffer with Cessna proprietary stuff or Narcrap.

If you want a 70s model with decent paint, new interior and updated radios, you get within striking distance of an earlier post-restart model. Every once in a while, you will see early 2000s 182s with really low hours on the market, they dont usually stay around for long.

Owners of old high-hour aircraft will usually tell you how 'age doesn't matter' and 'hours dont matter', but if you fly a 77 172 and then a 2002 172, it'll be hard to believe that they are supposedly the same plane.

There are good reasons to go with the older ones. If you have religious beliefs about Continental engines or you need the better useful load would be the main reasons, other than that, the newer ones are just nicer aircraft.

 

[gprellwitz]

First, sign up with the Cessna Pilots Association and the Cessna Pilots Society to get lots of specifics.

Given your budget and that you're a high-country flier, I would strongly consider getting a "cherry" legacy (late 70's, early 80's) 182 that has an engine upgrade to at least a Pponk or Texas Skyways conversion. We have Pponk (275 hp) mod, which is basically O-520 cylinders on a 470 bottom end. We've flown it to Big Bear and Mammoth many times, and the difference in climb and high-DA performance is huge over stock. I don't know that there any engine upgrade options available for the restart 182s. Another option to consider would be a T182.

Texas Skyways has an engine conversion for the restarts.

 

[N747JB]

I won't argue that newer is better, I was merely pointing out that a restart airplane will still have old avionics. Believe it or not my Cessna autopilot actually works on heading and nav! I haven't flown with a KAP 140, but they HAVE to be better than anything Cessna built.
I also wouldn't buy an older runout and try to build it, I keep hearing people give that advice, but I keep adding the cost up and it's usually much cheaper to buy it like you want it. :wink2:

Reasonable thing to do. After you do that, your AP is going to be a KAP140 and your other radio a KX155A. In a 70s model, unless you find one that has been completely re-done, you are still going to suffer with Cessna proprietary stuff or Narcrap.

If you want a 70s model with decent paint, new interior and updated radios, you get within striking distance of an earlier post-restart model. Every once in a while, you will see early 2000s 182s with really low hours on the market, they dont usually stay around for long.

Owners of old high-hour aircraft will usually tell you how 'age doesn't matter' and 'hours dont matter', but if you fly a 77 172 and then a 2002 172, it'll be hard to believe that they are supposedly the same plane.

There are good reasons to go with the older ones. If you have religious beliefs about Continental engines or you need the better useful load would be the main reasons, other than that, the newer ones are just nicer aircraft.

 

[FormerHangie]

How concerned should I be about 100LL availability? I know Cessna is now moving to a 182 running on Jet-A (Diesel). Not sure if that one has been certified yet, but in any case it is out of my budget. We have ethanol added to our mogas so not sure that is really an option.

I would be quite concerned if I were considering buying an airplane. The US Energy Information Administation provides a "product supplied" figure that's a pretty good proxy for the amount of avgas sold. It's here if you'd like to take a look at the numbers: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mgaupus1&f=m Over the last 30 years the amount of avgas provided has fallen by a little more than half, but for some reason this year it's fallen off by almost 13%, after falling by 7% last year. That doesn't bode well for a leaded avgas replacement. Even if the production cost isn't too bad, the small quantities involved are going to discourage the majors from getting involved, and you're not going to want to pay what it will cost to produce the stuff in racing gasoline sized batches.

Find ethanol free mogas if you get one eligible for the STC.

That may be more of an issue than finding 100LL for most of us in the future.

Every marina around here sells it. It's out there. I understand most FBO's don't want much to do with it. Form a cooperative and get your own self service pumps put in.

 

[weilke]

A little off topic here but any reason you couldnt put a couple big tanks in the hangar and have mogas delivered ethanol free?

Nothing to keep you from doing so except for NFPA standards, insurance regs state, local and airport rules :wink2: .


(yes, it can be done, the expense to set up a in-hangar tank that fulfills the above mentioned requirements is going to pay for a lot of full-service Avgas. If you are on your own farm-strip and your hangar is a 'machine shed', nobody gives a rats @$$ )

 

[FormerHangie]

My father had a Skylane, a 182N with the Continental O-470, I never got to fly it PIC, but I did plenty of right seat duty. I remember it as being kind of heavy to fly, especially compared to the Grummans I later learned on, and it having a great, rumbly smooth sort of sound and feel. Maybe not the most sporting of aircraft, but it was a wonderful traveling partner and I remember it very fondly.

 

[nddons]

- find a post-restart that is affected by the AD but didn't have it done.
- beat them up on price
- ferry the plane
- do an Alamo conversion
- own a plane with decent avionics and a new engine

What the heck is an Alamo conversion?

 

[weilke]

What the heck is an Alamo conversion?

At the time of overhaul, replace the IO540 AB1A5 that is rpm limited with a new IO 540 D4B5 that spins to 2700rpm. Very similar engine with a different crank and associated hardware. Same governor, same prop. This gives you 260hp in a post-restart plane, doesn't add much to the cruise speed but 25hp extra can't hurt in a hot environment.
The name is that of the STC holder Alamo aerospace in Decatur,TX. T

The neat part about the conversion of the 182S is that you can keep the same prop and governor. After you account for the price difference between a factory overhaul and a new engine, the cost for the additional 25hp is about 5k. Not bad as engine upgrades go (some of the other upgrades they offer, e.g. the 182RG are pricier as they require a new prop).
If you can find a 182S that is affected by the AD but didn't get the crank-kit or engine on Lycomings dime, this can be an economical way to get a 260hp 182.

Not to be confused with a Texas Skyways conversion which replaces the Lycoming IO 540 with a Continental IO 550 N. This gives you 300hp, but the cost is considerably more. They (and about 4 others) have STCs to replace the 235 O470 on the 60s and 70s era 182s with 285 and 300hp IO 520s and IO 550s. Other worthwhile options if you think a stock 182 is not enough.

 

[old school]

A 182 with a PPonk is the best flying SUV ever made.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

A 182 with a PPonk is the best flying SUV ever made.

Welcome to POA!

 

[old school]

Thanks

 

[timwinters]

A 182 with a PPonk is the best flying SUV ever made.

And it would be even more perfect if it was legal to burn MoGas in a Ponk.

I'd Ponk my plane at the next OH if MoGas was legal. But...

(Notice, I said "legal"...not "safe".)

 

[weirdjim]

Tim Winters and I both fly a '58 A model and I wouldn't trade mine straight across for a later one. Besides getting priority parking at Oshkosh, it comes with airshow bragging rights.

Jim

 

[Skylane81E]

I'm partial to "legacy" planes. I think a Q with the fresh pick up gross STC and a Pponk would be very nearly the perfect 182.

The next best in my book are the strait tails, I have a bit of a crush on 5057D after flying her to Gastons, they do have less room inside than the later "wide body" planes and it's my R's only real advantage over one unless you have the iron butt to use the big gas tanks in the later planes.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

I'm partial to "legacy" planes. I think a Q with the fresh pick up gross STC and a Pponk would be very nearly the perfect 182.

We have the above, but I'll say it's a tie between what we've got and a Katmai.

:wink2:

I think we need to add VGs and flap-gap seals, but that'll really mess with the paint, and we're not ready to go through that again.

 

[Skylane81E]

Is a katmai still a 182 though?

 

[timwinters]

Awwww, shucks, Dunc...

You made Ms. DueBeUs blush...

 

[Henning]

I have my PPL and am starting my instrument training. I have 110 total hours, mostly in a 172, but 10 of it in a 182. I also have 35 hours in a 182 in Africa that I can't include in my total hours.

I am based at KRNO (so high desert). Mostly it is for my wife and I, but we'd sometimes bring another couple (he's a pilot too). Nevada has lots of open space so range is a consideration and we would like to be comfortable flying onto a grass runway to visit friends in Oregon and Washington.

My budget could be as high as $160K (paying cash) which I think would get me a nice 1998 182S, perhaps even something from 1999 or 2000. I have been advised to avoid 1997 as that was the first year re-starting the production line.

It would also cover a 1982 or 83 182R. I can't afford a G1000 system so I'd be hoping to get something with a G530.

Obviously I am looking for a low time (esp low engine time) airplane and one that has not been in a school (shouldn't be a problem as most schools don't use 182s).

I know there was a crankshaft AD but don't know much about the work it entailed. I have also heard that getting a fuel-injected Lycoming model will get me a slightly lower fuel burn.

AOPA told be about $1500 to insure it and locally a hangar is $300/mo or so. Fuel is $5.35 last time I checked at KCXP which is much cheaper than KRNO and worth a landing.

Thoughts and comments?

Yeah, you want the one with the optional canard and 260 HP.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Is a katmai still a 182 though?

I'm pretty sure it is done as a series of STCs. They can't sell it as a "new" airframe, and they disclose the year/model and TTSN for the 182 airframe. Also, I see that they do advertise the eligible ones as having the "Fresh Pick" MGTOW increase STC.

Jeff

 

[bluerooster]

Dads '59 182A was just fine for the "high desert" type of operation. Way fewer ADs than the newer models, bigger payload, Car gas STC, Very light on the controls compared to newer ones, real nice ones can be had for half of what you're willing to spend. And the straight tail fastbacks have a butt load of class. (But I'm just a tad biased)

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Dads '59 182A was just fine for the "high desert" type of operation. Way fewer ADs than the newer models, bigger payload, Car gas STC, Very light on the controls compared to newer ones, real nice ones can be had for half of what you're willing to spend. And the straight tail fastbacks have a butt load of class. (But I'm just a tad biased)

The earliest models perform well because they weigh less, and carry less load at gross. The cabin is also a few inches narrower.

 

[FlyingJ]

My home airport is 4700 ft in SE Arizona. Our 182P with O-470 has been loaded to 2800 lbs and no issues with takeoff and climb here, including summer heat and density altitude.
Never hurts to have more horsepower (except fuel costs) but the O-470/C182 combination seems more than adequate for the high desert.
All around a great airplane.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

My home airport is 4700 ft in SE Arizona. Our 182P with O-470 has been loaded to 2800 lbs and no issues with takeoff and climb here, including summer heat and density altitude.
Never hurts to have more horsepower (except fuel costs) but the O-470/C182 combination seems more than adequate for the high desert.
All around a great airplane.

The issue at Big Bear, and more importantly at Mammoth, is not just the initial climb performance, but having power to spare to handle mountain downdrafts and rising terrain after takeoff. Big Bear is at 6700', Mammoth is at 7100'.

Jeff

 

[FlyingJ]

The issue at Big Bear, and more importantly at Mammoth, is not just the initial climb performance, but having power to spare to handle mountain downdrafts and rising terrain after takeoff. Big Bear is at 6700', Mammoth is at 7100'.

Jeff

Understood, but i was describing my experience with a 182 flying from a high desert location at similar elevation to the OP.

 

[Skylane81E]

I've had a 182 in and out of leadville (LXV) at 9934' several times and it does fine, you have to clear a lot of higher terrain than that to get there, especially over independence pass.

Yep, I've been to LXV twice, once with a departure at a 13,000ft DA



Used a fair bit of runway